Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Took too long to complete a vehicle crossover;
• Wrongly charged an additional amount for inspecting and signing off building works under the Building Regulations;
• Wrongly charged late payment interest on the amount owed; and,
• Failed to properly explain the requirements and implications of a ‘Section 106’ planning agreement.
2. He says this resulted in additional charges for ‘indexation’ and late payment interest and caused him stress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative (Mrs X) and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils may approve planning applications subject to a planning condition requiring the applicant to enter into a separate legal agreement. Councils’ powers and appeal rights relating to these agreements are found in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The agreements are usually referred to as ‘section 106’ agreements. The agreements are in the form of a deed, which is a form of contract that is legally binding on the parties that sign it. They may be enforced in the county court.
7. The Council granted Mr X planning permission for development subject to a ‘section 106 agreement’ several years ago. It accepts it delayed for four weeks beyond its quoted timescales for completing work on Mr X’s vehicle crossover and has apologised for its delay. Mr X says the delay was much longer- approximately three months. He says this led to a delay in ‘practical completion’ of the development which in turn increased the additional charges applied under the terms of the Section 106 agreement.
8. I cannot however say that any delay by the Council directly resulted in an increase in the amount owed by Mr X. This is because the Council issued a completion certificate in May 2025 and completed the vehicle crossover in June 2025. Mr X did not however notify the Council of ‘practical completion’ as required by the terms of the Section 106 agreement until late August 2025.
9. I cannot therefore say that had the Council completed the crossover sooner, Mr X would have faced a lower indexation charge. Mr X’s complaint to the Council is clear that he did not clearly understand the requirements around notification but it was his responsibility to ensure he did, prior to signing the agreement. I cannot hold the Council responsible for Mr X’s misunderstanding.
10. There is a clear dispute between Mr X and the Council about the extent of the work included within the building control application but I do not need to investigate this point further. This is because the Council has agreed to waive the additional charges it says are owed and this provides a suitable remedy for the issue. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.
11. The Council also accepts the amount of the late payment interest included within its invoice is incorrect and it has updated the invoice to reflect the correct amount. Again, it is unlikely further investigation of this issue would achieve anything more for Mr X. Mr X disputes the basis for charging any late payment interest but this is provided for within the Section 106 agreement and the Council has simply applied the terms as it is entitled to do. I could not therefore say this was fault. Had Mr X felt the agreement was unfair he could have refused to sign it or asked for changes at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has taken suitable steps to remedy the injustice Mr X claims from the building control and late payment interest issues and there is not enough evidence of fault on the remaining points. It is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman